16Twenty - 1620 W Lake St

[David Greene]

I do not like those small windows at all.

[ECtransplant]

Oops. I was looking at it 90 degrees off. Was thinking it would be at the corner of Lake and James

[Wedgeguy]

The windows are where they are and size due to the fact that is the stairwell of the building.

[John]

Decent building with a low key but very nice modern design. The scale works well with the neighborhood. Let this be built!

[David Greene]

The windows are where they are and size due to the fact that is the stairwell of the building.

Plenty of buildings have stairwells with large, friendly windows.

[min-chi-cbus]

Why would they show the corner of the building facing the alley? Why not the prominent corner of Lake & James?! Makes me wonder what they're potentially hiding!

P.S. While we're all shitting on the design of this building, I don't like the various shades of dull and gray the developer chose. It's really kinda depressing, at least in a conceptual rendering (in real life those colors might be perfect, IDK).

[Nathan]

Windows like that have a lot of benefits, they create more diffused even light in the strair well, create pattern and texture, break up the monotony of aesthetics ( sorry David but I imagine your ideal world being extremely sterile and boring, though it's never been clear to me what you actually do like) they're also more discrete so don't require window coverings for privacy or shade. probably more if I thought real hard about it.

[mamundsen]

Why would they show the corner of the building facing the alley? Why not the prominent corner of Lake & James?! Makes me wonder what they're potentially hiding!

P.S. While we're all shitting on the design of this building, I don't like the various shades of dull and gray the developer chose. It's really kinda depressing, at least in a conceptual rendering (in real life those colors might be perfect, IDK).

There are renderings of the Lake & James corner on the first page of this thread. They are not "hiding" anything.

[Wedgeguy]

Windows like that have a lot of benefits, they create more diffused even light in the strair well, create pattern and texture, break up the monotony of aesthetics ( sorry David but I imagine your ideal world being extremely sterile and boring, though it's never been clear to me what you actually do like) they're also more discrete so don't require window coverings for privacy or shade. probably more if I thought real hard about it.

To quote Meatloaf, You took the words right out of my mouth. All you said are my views of it also.

[John]

I mean , this is not a project to get worked up about aesthetically. Its high quality but subdued and "fits in". The street frontage is well done along Lake Street. It does everything it needs to do to be good urban infill. Should be a winner.

[David Greene]

Oh, I'm not saying don't build the thing, I just don't like small windows. You get small windows in a prison.

[bubzki2]

Oh, I'm not saying don't build the thing, I just don't like small windows. You get small windows in a prison.

But at least you get concrete construction, not stick, if you live in a prison.

[twincitizen]

This was approved by the Planning Commission agenda on Monday: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/meetings/p ... S1P-124361

New PC member Meg Forney, representing the Park Board, was the only commissioner that voted against the completely non-controversial three-story project. I haven't watched the tape, but I can only imagine that she's either anti-development or anti-teardown due to environmental reasons. That doesn't bode well for her votes on future development, but it's also very unlikely her one vote would ever make a difference.

[mattaudio]

She was the park board at large candidate with the awful yard signs, IIRC. B&W photo of her running around, big yellow gobs of text. #YardSignPolitics

[MNdible]

I'm quite certain that the only reason Forney was elected was due to the weirdness with IRV and multi-seat races.

[twincitizen]

Well, not exactly. She still got more votes than the two runners-up (Tom Nordyke and Jason Stone, who was Rybak-endorsed and could have won with a tiny bit more publicity or campaign budget)

But you're right, the way the votes were tabulated for seats 2 and 3 of this multi-seat race was completely absurd, to put it lightly.

[FISHMANPET]

So, listening to this meeting. One objector to this project, which is why it even got discussed. It's, um, interesting.

[schmitzm03]

This was approved by the Planning Commission agenda on Monday: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/meetings/p ... S1P-124361

New PC member Meg Forney, representing the Park Board, was the only commissioner that voted against the completely non-controversial three-story project. I haven't watched the tape, but I can only imagine that she's either anti-development or anti-teardown due to environmental reasons. That doesn't bode well for her votes on future development, but it's also very unlikely her one vote would ever make a difference.

There was a communication from the Park Board in the planning commission report for this project and it said the Park Board opposed the project because, IIRC, it required a variance for height (it is in the shoreland overlay district). They thought it would "set a negative precedent."

[mplser]

so they don't want to allow a 3 story building 2 blocks away from a lake even though there are dozens of taller buildings (some more than twice as tall) between this and the lake? OK....

will it even be taller than the houses that sit there now?

[twincitizen]

The zoning code allows for deviations to the Shoreland Overlay 35' height limit by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) just like anywhere else in the city:

The height limitation of principal structures may be increased by conditional use permit, as provided in Chapter 525, Administration and Enforcement. In addition to the conditional use standards contained in Chapter 525, the city planning commission shall consider, but not be limited to, the following factors when determining maximum height:
(1)Access to light and air of surrounding properties.
(2)Shadowing of residential properties or significant public spaces.
(3)The scale and character of surrounding uses.
(4)Preservation of views of landmark buildings, significant open spaces or water bodies.

and

(a) Evaluation criteria. In addition to the conditional use and variance standards contained in Chapter 525, Administration and Enforcement, the city planning commission and board of adjustment shall consider the following:
(1)The prevention of soil erosion or other possible pollution of public waters, both during and after construction.
(2)Limiting the visibility of structures and other development from protected waters.
(3)The suitability of the protected water to safely accommodate the types, uses and numbers of watercraft that the development may generate.

So it seems pretty unreasonable to buck the staff recommendation on this out of some fear of precedent, when there are already 5 and 7 story structures two blocks closer to the lake.